On August 31, the Sudanese transitional government and the Sudan Revolutionary Front (SRF) reached a historic peace agreement in an attempt to end the Sudanese Civil War with as little bloodshed as possible. The treaty, called the Juba Peace Agreement, is a document on which high hopes are riding for those seeking change in war-torn Sudan. Unlike other prior peace agreements that ended with little benefit, this one is founded on mutual effort and a willingness to work towards positive change, and perhaps marks the beginning of the end for 30 years of severe Islamic rule. Along with the dissolution of Islamic policy, the treaty also lays out overarching foundations for the establishment of a democratic nation and is dedicated to promoting economic growth throughout the country.
The Sudanese transitional government has faced many works to do in the wake of the damage caused by civil conflict. The previous thirty-year dictatorship has left scars all over the nation; rebel groups have cropped up and caused even more damage fighting for freedoms lost under dictator Omar al-Bashir. When he was overthrown in April 2019 and sentenced by the International Criminal Court (ICC), the Transitional Military Council (TMC) and the Forces of Freedom and Change (FFC) alliance faced numerous challenges in their bid for democracy. However, the Juba Peace Agreement differs significantly from previous peace agreements, and there are many invested in seeing how the Juba agreement plays out in the turbulent times of a governmental transition.
The al-Bashir Era: The Beginning of a Dictatorial Sudan
Former President Omar al-Bashir became dictator of the country in a military coup in 1989, ousting the democratic government at the time. His government was proven to be corrupt — from electoral fraud to massive human rights infringements — and his time as Sudan’s seventh president plunged the country into great difficulty. Numerous rebel groups emerged in the ensuing 30 years, from the Sudan Liberation Movement/Army (SLM/A) to the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM). All were created for the purpose of waging war against al-Bashir’s corrupt regime. About 300,000 people died at the hands of the allied government armed forces and the Janjaweed militia, with over two million people displaced over a span of 17 years. These conflicts turned many Sudanese civilians into international refugees, and even citizens within the country lost their homes.
Al-Bashir’s regime came to an end, ironically, with a coup to overthrow his rule. Afterward, he was arrested and put in prison to defend himself before the ICC. His current charges are five counts of crimes against humanity, two counts of international war crimes, and three counts of genocide. The prosecutors alleged that the crimes happened between 2003 and 2008 in Darfur, Sudan. While the case has yet to begin, the significance of al-Bashir being behind bars points to a brighter future for Sudan, one that will move away from the tyrannical former president.
Working Towards Peace, One Agreement at a Time
The Juba Peace Agreement has been lauded internationally in the ruins of a war-torn Sudan. The United Nations (UN) Secretary-General has hailed it as a “historic achievement,” commending the tangible results produced by mediation and negotiation. Its difference from other agreements, according to Professor Kim Jong Do (Institute of Middle Eastern Affairs, Myongji University), comes from the consensus to separate religion from state and declare equal rights to the various ethnicities living within the country. However, the real struggle for its implementation has yet to take place, with the content of the treaty not yet put in motion. With the problematic history, it remains to be seen whether the people of Sudan will be able to reap the benefits of this transitional government.
Furthermore, Professor Kim mentioned that this agreement was negotiated by the President of South Sudan in hopes of restoring peace in the North. Therefore, it is clear that all members of the Sudanese factions have not come into the idea of this treaty in their own accord, instead had it insisted upon by a third party. Fueled by the warring diversity of the people living within Sudan, such a process of establishing the treaty has indeed raised severe concerns about its effectiveness.
The Future of Sudan
As for now, though the future remains open with possibility, there are a number of potential obstacles to the democratization of Sudan. Of primary concern is that two other armed movements that are currently active have not joined the Juba peace talks, shrouding their opinions on a future democratic Sudan in mystery. They are led by Abdelaziz al-Hilu and Abdelwahed al-Nur, rebels with control over parts of Sudanese territory, and their lack of participation means that the content of the treaty holds little weight in lands under their authority.
Furthermore, while other documents have erred on the specifics — especially on the topic of abolishing nationwide Islamic law and compensating civilians and rebel forces for demilitarization — experts have harshly criticized the lack of tangible solutions offered by the transitional government. Many believe that world leaders have prematurely praised the Juba peace agreement and that it will have as little effect as other previous documents.
Sudan has overcome the severity of war and conflict to reach its current state of negotiable peace. However, it is clear that there are still difficulties ahead in creating a truly democratic nation from the ground up. The priority of the transitional government, along with its allies, should be working on promises already made by delivering tangible results from the words on paper. This positive transition from a once dictatorial regime to a government of equality teaches us that no cause is forever lost — something that we, the international community, forget too often. Perhaps only the future can tell what will become of Sudan’s bid for stability, but support from the international community will help this nation to better itself.